July 22nd, 2013

Reince Priebus promises the theocrats that his party won’t be tolerant toward gay people or women’s reproductive freedom, though it might consider being a little bit less rude about its intolerance. After all, “there’s only one sovereign God,” as described in “the New Testament.”

What a relief! Just for a moment, they had me worried.

5 Responses to “Whew!”

  1. James Wimberley says:

    I follow your Coulter policy of being fair to creeps. The New Testament was cited by Priebus in the context of “grace, love and respect”, and the “one sovereign God” in the next paragraph was not attributed to any authority. I think grace at least is a specifically NT - indeed specifically Pauline - concept, though love is of course not. I don’t where where he gets respect, an aristocratic value more to be found in Homer than the Bible. If it’s the Decalogue on honouring your parents, Jesus wasn’t keen on it at all. Paul is traditional on family values, but in the wider society, he counsels obedience to the powers that be, not respect.

    • Warren Terra says:

      Per the article (I didn’t watch the speech):

      Priebus assured Brody that the GOP will continue to represent “things that are very square with our beliefs as Christians” and recognize that “there’s only one sovereign God.”

      So: the GOP will continue to strive to adhere to Christian doctrine, and the head of the GOP declares that the official position of the GOP is an assertive monotheism.

      To be fair, all of that is not necessarily inconsistent with Mormonism, or for that matter with Islam. But as an official position it is at least not welcoming and perhaps hostile to Atheists, Polytheists, and perhaps Jews.

      • MobiusKlein says:

        And Buddhists, Taoists not very welcome either.

        I do note you correctly leave out Mammonists as not being welcome, however.

      • James Wimberley says:

        I was following the transcript in the link. The exclusionary “Christianity” is of course clearly there.

  2. Eli says:

    “I don’t know if I’ve used the word ‘tolerance,’ I don’t really care for that word myself. I don’t have a problem with it, I just think it has another meaning politically that can go the other direction.”
    Dang liberal dog whistles.

    See, back in the nineties, when they were smarter, the GOP would have put the top down, flipped it and reversed it, ala compassionate conservatism. Where’s Tolerant Conservatism (TM) when you need it?

Post a Comment


SiteMeter